Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Citado por Google 
Similares en
SciELO 
Similares en Google 
Permalink
Introduction
For teachers, it is not enough to have only academic knowledge, it is also essential having emotional knowledge. Studies on teacher’s emotional intelligence (EI) have already provided evidence that EI is the foundation for positives relationships, and for a good functioning in a school environment (Hargraves, 2017; Maamari & Majdalani, 2019), namely concerning the benefits regarding professional performance, (Cejudo & López-Delgado, 2017), teaching and learning process (Allen et al., 2014), students’ school achievement (Becker et al., 2014), job satisfaction (Cejudo & López-Delgado, 2017), reducing stress and burnout (Subalakshmi et al., 2019), and the significance for interpersonal relationships in an educational context (Yin et al., 2013).
Emotions influence teacher-student interactions and shape the atmosphere of the classroom (Meyer & Turner, 2007). In addition, Iskandar, Majzub and Mahmud (2009) points that EI plays a significant role in teaching efficacy, and in increasing performance at teacher’s work. Moreover, Perry and Ball (2007) refer that there is a need to clarify the relation between teachers’ EI differences and classroom behavior. However, few studies have examined the relationships between school teacher’s EI capacities, teacher’s efficacy and classroom management efficacy.
In this context, the present study analyzes the relationships between Portuguese school teacher’s EI, teacher’s efficacy, and classroom management efficacy. It also analyzes the relationships between teacher’s EI and teacher’s characteristics (gender) and professional background (service time and academic formation).
Teacher’s emotional intelligence capacities
School teachers currently work in a society full of instability, of many natures, and at schools which in the middle of successive reforms are slow to find a solution that meets the needs of the whole educational community. Increasingly, the significance of teacher’s EI development is perceptible, so that they have tools to work in a rewarding and effective way the teaching and learning process.
During the last years, EI has received more attention in the educational field. Teaching requires great emotional labor and teachers EI is recognized as the basis of their attitudes toward their students and to provide a steady and wholesome classroom environment (Hen & Sharabi-Nov, 2014). Also, teachers recognized the importance of EI in classrooms and how it becomes a crucial constituent of the teaching-learning process resulting in holistic learning and development of students (Allen et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2014; Maamari & Majdalani, 2019; Pugazhenthi & Srinivasan, 2018). Besides, different studies showed that EI is positively correlated with teacher’s efficacy (Hassan et al., 2015; Koçoğlu, 2011; Wenn et al., 2018), and with classroom management efficacy (Valente et al., 2019; Wahyuddin, 2016).
EI theory concerns the perception of emotions, the use of emotions to facilitate thinking, the understanding of emotions and their management (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In this sense, teachers with a great capacity for emotional perception are those who perceive and are aware of student’s state of mind and know when and how to intervene (Fernandéz-Berrocal & Extremera, 2005). One of the most difficult capacities to master is the management of our emotional states, one of the most significant dimensions of EI construct and with greater predictive capacity (Bracket et al., 2006). When the teacher regulates his emotions, he often manages to modify his own and others’ feelings (Fernandéz-Berrocal & Extremera, 2005), providing coping strategies (Lazarus, 2000) that focus on emotion change or solving the problem.
On teaching work, considered one of the professions with the greatest emotional exhaustion (Fernandéz-Berrocal & Extremera, 2005), apply correct emotional management is essential and recommended for teaching efficacy, and classroom management.
The interactions in classroom context are instituted and sustained through emotions expressed by the teacher during the work he develops with students, being significant for education quality, since emotions help on discovery and understanding of others, playing an essential role in teachers-students relationships.
Studies analyze the role of personal and professional variables (e.g., gender, service time and academic formation) whit school teacher’s EI. Some of these studies reveal high overall EI scores for women compared to men (Gill & Sankulkar, 2017; Valente, 2019). About the influence of service time on teacher’s EI, some studies with Portuguese teachers indicate that teachers with more service time tend to have lower levels of EI (Sousa, 2011; Valente, 2019). Teachers who have taught for less than six years have greater emotional perception and can regulate their negative emotional states and prolong the positive ones, contrary to their colleagues with more than six years of service time (Sousa, 2011). Regarding academic training, studies showed that teachers with more academic formation (e.g., Ph.D.) are the ones who commit most attention to their emotions and tend to have higher levels of EI (Fernandes, 2015; Valente, 2019).
Efficacy for teaching and for classroom management
Effectiveness in teaching and quality learning are the two most significant factors for high standards in the field of education (Pugazhenthi & Srinivasan, 2018). In the classroom where individuals with different characteristics, feelings, and personalities interact, it is expected that several problems arise. These problems require skills to successfully manage them, across great effectiveness capacities for teaching and classroom management.
Personal teaching efficacy is defined as the teacher’s belief in their capacity to bring about modification in students, it refers to teacher’s judgments of their teaching abilities, and consists of teacher beliefs that they know suitable teaching techniques and can help students learn, achieve more, do better than usual, and increase retention, among other skills (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). For Lopes and Oliveira (2017) efficacy to teach is defined as the method of making student’s learning possible, promoting engagement and discussion, concerning and respecting students, and maximizing student’s academic performance. It is not just about whether teachers can ‘handle’ the inclusive classroom, but also about their confidence in choosing the strategies that promote student’s success (Lancaster, 2014; Kiel et al., 2019). In this sense, teacher efficacy is strained from Bandura (1997) conceptualization of self-efficacy and alludes to teacher’s perceptions of their skill in achieving the roles prescribed for them to realize a set of educational objectives, such as learning easing and student development.
Studies suggest that teachers who perceive themselves as more effective show higher professional performance and personal well-being at work (Holzberger et al., 2013; Klassen & Chiu, 2010), low levels of stress and burnout (Dicke et al., 2014) and use appropriate classroom management strategies (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
It has been found that teacher efficacy affects teacher levels of effort, planning, organization, persistence, and reliance on others. Specifically, teachers “with a high sense of efficacy employ more behaviors that have the potential to enhance student learning and motivation” (Lancaster, 2014, p. 240). The study of Ahsan et al. (2012) suggests that the teacher’s efficacy affects classroom management skills. Indeed, Martin, Linfoot and Stephenson (1999) proposed that teacher’s responses in the classroom misbehavior may be mediated by their confidence with their ability to deal with student behavior.
Classroom management is analyzed by several authors as a set of actions carried out by the teacher to develop a favorable and stimulating environment for school students. For Djigić and Stojiljkovic (2012), classroom management includes the management of space, time and activities, as well as management of student behavior, articulating the characteristics of the teacher and his capacities.
Teacher’s capacity to establishing and maintain a productive learning environment through effective classroom management is considered by experienced teachers as an essential competency (O’Neill & Stephensen, 2011). Studies have showed that classroom management efficacy is an essential prerequisite for cognitive learning, and if the teacher fails to solve problems arising from unruly and conflicting student behavior, the entire teaching and learning process will be affected (Taxer et al., 2018; Valente, 2019).
Given the above, in the present study, the following hypotheses were presented: hypothesis 1) A statistically positive correlation is expected between gender and EI capacities; hypothesis 2) A statistically negative correlation is expected between service time and EI capacities; hypothesis 3) A statistically positive correlation is expected between academic formation and EI capacities; hypothesis 4) A statistically positive correlation is expected between the capacity for perceive and understand emotions and the capacity to manage and regulate emotions; hypothesis 5) A statistically positive correlation is expected between the capacity to express and classify emotions and the capacity for manage and regulate emotions; hypothesis 6) A statistically positive correlation is expected between EI capacities and “personal teaching efficacy”; hypothesis 7) A statistically positive correlation is expected between EI capacities and “efficacy for classroom management and discipline”; and hypothesis 8) A statistically positive correlation is expected between “personal teaching efficacy” and efficacy for “classroom management and discipline”.
Methods
Participants
The participants were 634 school teachers (5th to 12th grade), 68.8% women and 31.2% men. Service time among participants varied: 7.3% with less than 10 years, 27.1% between 10-20 years, 41.5% between 21-30 years, and 24.1% with more than 30 years of service time. Regarding academic formation varied: 2.8% had a bachelor’s degree, 75.7% undergraduate degree, 19.7% master’s degree and 1.7% had a Ph.D. The sample of the study was of convenience. All teachers had Portuguese nationality and working in public schools.
Measures
A personal and professional information form was developed by the researchers to collect information from participates (gender, service time, and academic formation).
Emotional Intelligence was assessed through the Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire for Teachers (ESCQ-T; Valente & Lourenço, peer review), adaptation of Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire (ESCQ; Takšić, 2000). The answers were evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). ESCQ-T includes 45-item distributed in three dimensions: (a) Perceive and understand emotions, 15 items (α = 0.91) (e.g., When I see how a student feels, I usually know what has happened to him/her); (b) Express and classify emotions, 14 items (α = 0.85) (e.g., I can express my emotions well); and (c) Manage and regulate emotions, 16 items (α = 0.87) (e.g., I can stay in a good mood even if something unpleasant happens in the classroom). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was α = 0.91.
Teacher efficacy was assessed through the Teacher Efficacy in Classroom Management and Discipline Scale (TECMDS; Emmer & Hickman, 1991), adapted from the scale of Gibson and Dembo (1984). The TECMDS includes 36-item distributed in three dimensions: Personal teaching efficacy (teacher’s efficacy); External influences; and Efficacy for classroom management and discipline. The answers were evaluated on a Likert scale with 5 points, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this study, only the “personal teaching efficacy” and the “efficacy for classroom management and discipline” dimensions were applied: (a) Personal teaching efficacy, 7 items (α = 0.79) (e.g., If one of my students cannot perform an activity, I am able to accurately evaluate the correct level of difficulty); (b) and Efficacy for classroom management and discipline, 15 items (α = 0.86) (e.g., If a student in my class becomes disturbing and noisy, I make sure I know techniques to correct it quickly). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was α = 0.85.
Procedure
All the procedures were conducted with permission from the General Directorate of Education (Ministry of Education), Ethics committees of the authors’ institutions, schools’ Directors, and Teachers participants. Researchers explained the purpose of the study and administered the questionnaires, in groups of 10-20 teachers, during a session lasting from 30 minutes, at school, during 2018. The conventional ethical and deontological procedures were defined, and teachers were informed about the confidentiality and anonymity of the collected data before they gave their consent to participate voluntarily in the study. In total, 700 questionnaires were delivered and 634 fully filled were returned. 90.6% of teachers agreed to participate with the study, and only 9.4% were not filled in due to a lack of teacher availability.
Data analysis
The present study used descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation tests, and the Structural Equation Models (SEM; Lowe, Winzar, & Ward, 2007) technique. The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS/AMOS 25 (Arbuckle, 2012). No missing data were recorded since all the collaborating school teachers completed the questionnaires in full. So, all the collected data were considered valid.
The model fit was estimated considering the statistical indices: GFI and AGFI: values ≥ 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit, values ≥ 0.95 indicate a good fit; CFI: values ≥ 0.95 indicate a good fit of the model (Hu & Bentler, 1999); TLI: values ≥ 0.95 reveal a robust fit (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2005); RMSEA: values between 0.08-0.05 indicate a reasonable fit, and values < 0.05 indicate a good fit (Byrne, 2010); and CN: a value > 200 is indicative that the model adequately represents the sample data (Hoelter, 1983). It was considered as criterion that asymmetry values greater than two and kurtosis values greater than seven should not be considered (Finney & DiStefano, 2013). For Pearson’s coefficient r it is assumed that: (a) an r < 0.200 indicates a very low; (b) between 0.200-0.399 low; (c) between 0.400-0.699 moderate; (d) between 0.700-0.899 high; and (e) and between 0.900-1 very high (Pestana & Gageiro, 2014).
Results
The overall goodness indices of proposed SEM are very robust: χ2 = 9.132; p = 0.243; χ2/d.f. = 1.305; GFI = 0.996; AGFI = 0.982; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.947; RMSEA = 0.022, confirming the hypothesis that projected model represents the relations between existing variables in our empirical matrix. The Hoelter index values were also adjusted [CN = 976 (0.05) and 1281 (0.01)].
Figure 1 specifies the hypothesized model for 634 school teachers.
Table 1 shows the descriptive data (minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, asymmetry and kurtosis) corresponding to variables included on SEM. In sample, no variable reveals values close to defined by Finney and DiStefano (2013), so is justified to proceed with estimation of the fit model.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Corresponding to the Variables
Note. SD = Standard Deviation; PUE = Perceive and Understand Emotions; ECE = Express and Classify Emotions; MRE = Manage and Regulate Emotions; PTE = Personal Teaching Efficacy; ECMD = Efficacy for Classroom Management and Discipline
From the analysis of Table 2 and Figure 1, it can be determined that most of the hypotheses guiding the specifications have been confirmed and are statistically significant.
Results indicated that women presented higher results than men in all EI capacities, namely a positive relation with the capacities for perceive/understand emotions (β = 0.15; p < 0.001), for express/classify emotions (β = 0.09; p < 0.05), and to manage/regulate emotions (β = 0.08; p < 0.05).
When considering service time, results indicated that teachers with more teaching experience show lower EI capacities, in the three EI capacities, namely lower capacity for perceive/understand emotions (β = -0.11; p< 0.01), for express/classify emotions (β = -0.11; p < 0.01), and for manage/regulate emotions (β = -0.09; p< 0.05). Regarding academic formation, results suggest teachers with more academic formation have higher level of EI in all dimensions, namely, more capacity for perceiving/understanding emotions (β = 0.10; p < 0.01), for expressing/classifying emotions (β = 0.09; p < 0.05) and for managing/ regulating emotions (β = 0.15; p < 0.001). These relations are positive and statistically significant.
Considering existing relations between dimensions of the two constructs, the results indicated that teachers who tend to have higher levels of capacity in perceiving/understanding emotions showed higher levels of teacher efficacy (β = 0.08; p < 0.05), and higher levels of efficacy for classroom management/discipline (β = 0.08; p < 0.05). Teachers who tend to have higher levels for capacity to manage/regulate emotions showed higher levels of teacher efficacy (β = 0.08; p< 0.05), and higher levels in efficacy for classroom management/discipline (β = 0.10; p < 0.05). Teachers who tend to have higher levels in expressing/classifying emotions showed higher levels of teacher efficacy (β = 0.13; p < 0.001) and higher levels in efficacy for classroom management/discipline (β = 0.08; p < 0.05).
Table 2 Covariance Structure Hypothesized for the Sample
Note. PUE = Perceive and Understand Emotions; ECE = Express and Classify Emotions; MRE = Manage and Regulate Emotions ; PTE = Personal Teaching Efficacy; ECMD = Efficacy for Classroom Management and Discipline; EVnS = Estimated Values not Standardized; SEV = Standardized Estimated Values; EE = Estimated Errors; p = significance level;*** = 0.000
Furthermore, teachers who tend to have higher values for the capacities to perceive/ understand emotions (β = 0.13; p < 0.001), and to express/classify emotions (β = 0.09; p < 0.05) showed more capacity for manage/regulate emotions, and both relations are statistically significant. It was also possible observed that teacher’s whit more efficacy for teaching showed more efficacy for classroom management/discipline (β = 0.09; p < 0.05).
Moreover, it can be mentioned that female gender had less service time (β = -0.9; p < 0.05), and lower academic formation (β = -0.08; p < 0.05). However, teachers who had more service time presented less academic formation (β = -0.12; p < 0.001). These relations are negative and statistically significant (cf. Table 2).
Regarding the multiple square correlations, these indicate that variables such as gender, service time and academic formation explain the capacities for perceive/ understand emotions in 5 % (η2 = 0.049), express/classify emotions in 3 % (η2 = 0.030), and for manage/regulate emotions with a value close to 8 % (η2 = 0.083). Regarding the variables efficacy for teaching and for classroom management/discipline, they are both explained indirectly by gender, service time and academic formation; and, directly, by the variables concerning the EI capacities and both are explained by approximately 4 %, with η2 = 0.037 for the first and η2 = 0.041 for the second.
As can be seen in Table 3, concerning the Pearson r correlations between the variables included in the model, it appears that the majority of the model variables are related to each other and are statistically significant, although the adjustment has very low values.
Table 3 Pearson’s Correlation between the Variables
Note. PUE = Perceive and Understand Emotions; ECE = Express and Classify Emotions; MRE = Manage and Regulate Emotions; PTE = Personal Teaching Efficacy; ECMD = Efficacy for Classroom Management and Discipline; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05
The most obvious associations correlate between capacity to manage/regulate emotions with the capacity for perceive/understand emotions (r = 0.182; p <0.01), and the academic formation (r = 0.177; p <0.01), being positive and statistically significant. There was also a positive and statistically significant association between the capacity to perceive /understand emotions and the capacity to express/classify emotions (r = 0.121; p <0.01). Note that the three EI capacities are associated with all other variables, which showed some cohesion in the estimation of proposed model. It should also be noted that service time is the only exogenous variable associated with all other variables, and these values are negative and statistically significant.
Discussion
Similar to other studies (Gill & Sankulkar, 2017; Valente, 2019), the results have showed that gender was a statistically positive correlation with EI capacities (PUE: r = 0.156; p <0. 01; ECE: r = 0.095; p <0. 05; MRE: r = 0.106; p <0.01). Therefore, teachers’ women presented higher results than men in all EI capacities, confirming hypothesis 1. These results may be justified by the fact that women are more socially accepted to show their emotions, allowing them to develop their emotional capacities. Concerning hypotheses 2, similar with other studies, with Portuguese teachers (Sousa, 2011; Valente, 2019), results have showed that service time was a statistically negative correlation with EI capacities (PUE: r = -0.135; p <0. 01; ECE: r = -0.124; p <0.01; MRE: r = -0.145; p<0.01). These results can be interpreted by the fact that teachers, in Portugal, are an aged class, suffering many of them from stress and burnout which affects their emotional capacity. When teacher’s academic formation was considered the results have showed a statistically positive correlation with EI capacities (PUE: r = 0.102; p <0.01; ECE: r = 0.094; p<0.05; MRE: r = 0.177; p < 0.01), as in other studies on Portuguese school teachers (Fernandes, 2015; Valente et al. 2019), confirming hypothesis 3.
Concerning hypotheses 4, the results have showed a statistically positive correlation between the capacity for perceive and understand emotions and the capacity to manage and regulate emotions (r = 0.182; p < 0.01). For example, teachers who can perceive the emotions students feel are better able to manage the emotions (positive or negative) that occur in the classroom and change the pace of the classroom in accordance with their emotional recognition. Also found a statistically positive correlation between the capacity to express/classify emotions and the capacity for manage/regulate emotions (r = 0.135; p < 0.01), confirming hypotheses 5. In short, this capacity to distinguish differences between verbal behavior and expressive manifestations of students allows teacher to know that, even when student initially claims that nothing happened; it is not entirely true and offers to speak and listen to the same, providing support and understanding. In order to do this the teacher needs to have good capacities in the scope of emotional perception and expression. Which enables teachers have a good ability for manage/regulate emotions.
Like in the study of Iskandar et al. (2009), the findings of the present investigation indicate that EI plays a significant role in teacher’s efficacy, and in increasing performance at work. Results have showed that EI capacities (perceive/understand emotions; express/classify emotions; and manage/regulate emotions) have a statistically positive correlation with teacher’s efficacy (PUE: r = 0.114; p < 0.01; ECE: r = 0.155; p< 0.01; MRE: r = 0.113; p< 0.01), as previous study (Hassan et al., 2015; Koçoğlu, 2011; Wenn et al., 2018), confirming hypotheses 6. These results showed that a teacher with developed EI capacities presents more methods to enhance the teaching and learning process. Also, Bandura (1997) indicated that teacher’ EI influence teaching competence and teacher efficacy by impacting their motivation.
Concerning hypotheses 7, the results have showed a statistically positive correlation between EI capacities and efficacy for classroom management/discipline (PUE: r = 0.118; p < 0.01; ECE: r = 0.120; p < 0.01; MRE: r = 0.134; p < 0.01). Similar to other EI studies (Hen & Sharabi-Nov, 2014; Valente, 2019; Valente et al., 2019; Wahyuddin, 2016) confirming hypotheses 7. Therefore, EI capacities favor the teacher’s work in classroom management. Thus, providing better management of activities, space, time, and students’ behavior, which promotes the teaching and learning process.
Aiming consideration on analysis the role of the EI capacities on teacher’s efficacy and classroom management efficacy, the results showed that the way teachers perceive their emotions, express them and internalize the capacity to manage and regulate with those emotions, influences their school praxis, essentially in their understanding of their self-efficacy, as well as their efficacy for manage all kinds of experiences that are developing in classroom space. The relevance of this study showed that teacher’s EI capacities must be understood as something to be managed in a constructive and proactive way. The teacher who tends to have higher levels of EI capacities, have more efficacy for teaching and for classroom management. These teachers easily perceive the students’ emotional state and adapt their behavior, altering the activity within the classroom. When they perceive that students are disinterested, they have the sensitivity to criticize a more sensitive student, arranges the organization of the tables in the room according to the class, and separates the students who are likely to have more friction.
An intelligent perception and management of the aspects associated with a daily praxis in the school context will certainly be salutary for the personal development of students, as well as for the structuring of positive and self-regulating environments in their learning. In general, it can be emphasized that results found indicate that EI capacities influence the perceptions that teachers have about their efficacy for teaching, and so for classroom management. Aware of this complexity, currently lived in the school, it is expected that this framework of successive constructions and reconstructions will design education for a desirable renewal of commitments. The results also have shown a statistically positive correlation between teacher efficacy and efficacy for classroom management/discipline (r = 0.120; p < 0.01), confirming hypotheses 8. Therefore, teacher’s classroom management strategies are affected by their point of view on their teaching skill.
Conclusion
The present study investigated the relationship between EI capacities, teacher efficacy, and classroom management efficacy, and also analyzed how school teacher’s EI capacities are influenced by gender, service time and academic formation. The findings of this study supported all hypotheses. This result demonstrated the benefits of teacher’s EI capacities, confirming the relationship between EI capacities and the efficacy for teaching and classroom management.
Although the results of this study are encouraging, they must be analyzed in light of some limitations. First, this study used two self-report questionnaires. They measure perception, which may lead teachers to respond according to what they consider socially necessary. Second, the sample size limits the generalization of results, as it represents a small sample of the population of teachers in Portugal. Another limitation was that the teachers in the study were mostly women, limiting the variability of the sample. However, this reveals the reality of Portuguese schools, where men teachers are the minority.
Therefore, the primary recommendation for future studies is complement the results through triangulation of data collection such as interviews and classroom observation. Second, future studies should involve larger samples. Finally, we should also examine the effect age on teacher’s EI capacities.
In conclusion, the finding of this study proved the significance of EI and their influence on the teachers’ work, specifically that EI capacities play an important role in efficacy for teaching and classroom management. In light of these findings, emotional education programs should be included in teachers' academic formation, to develop EI capacities so that they have a more effective professional activity.
